Considering that this site is called “Space Politics”, I thought that most of the people here understand that the core underlying reason for Apollo was about “national security” and “politics” and had almost nothing to do with a “space objective.”

After we beat the Soviets to the Moon, we had achieved the overriding purpose. Which was to demonstrate that countries based on democracy & capitalism was superior to those based on communism. (There are books written with this as the core theme.)

FYI, once Apollo’s political purpose was complete, it was IRRELEVANT that it was technically feasible to put humans on Mars by 1982.

Many engineers tend to forget that space is fundamentally political at its core. As they say “politics always wins”.

– Al

PS — If you don’t like this reality, great, join the rest of us. This is one more good reason for supporting a much stronger commercial space agenda. A profitable and triving commercial space industry is the best way to eliminate the need to ask politicians, year in and year out, for taxpayer funds.

You have to wonder why Dr. Foust is against competition.

I’m not against competition in general. The problem is that the best example of competition in space—the Space Race between the US and USSR in the 1960s—had long-term negative consequences that have arguably outweighed the positive short-term benefits from racing to the Moon. As I noted in an article nearly three years ago, in an earlier bubble of US-China space race hysteria:

Given what has happened in the three decades since the end of Apollo, one can argue that a high-intensity, short-duration space race like the one between the US and USSR is one of the worst things one can do to advance space exploration short of abandoning it altogether. The 1960s space race created institutions and bureaucracies that needed to be served after the race was over and warped expectations of what a realistic space program was for the worse. And, yet despite all of this, there are people who want to create a new space race with a new opponent.

“Dr.” ain’t necessary, as I cannot write prescriptions. I was going to call you “Finding.”

But this discussion isn’t worth continuing. I’ll take my (desperate, dangerously naive, ignorant) comments elsewhere.

The likelihood of ISS “succeeding over the long haul,” give its bastard origins and fundamental design features (including its location) are vanishingly small.

It was not my intention to insult you. My apologies for “appearing” to insult you.

Anyways, it appears that you are changing the subject (and making this one sentence the topic instead of responding to my core points. Even by your stringent standards, well over 95% of my response was of a non-insulting and substantive nature.

Do you want to debate and discuss the substance of the issue?

– Al

Previously I was labeled “dangerously naive.” Why is it necessary to resort to insults? Why is it even necessary to visit my intentions? Why isn’t it possible to disagree with somebody without denigrating them?

I have tried to make it a rule to not respond to people who don’t address the issues, but instead choose to attack the writer. It’s one of the primary reasons why I find blog commentary sections of limited utility. I’d rather waste my time more productively.

If it succeeds over the long haul, the Space Station, or its eventual replacement, is likely to become a center for international research, and potentially even trade. Already, European countries are prepared to pay high political and financial prices — and to try to force us to keep our promises to do the same — not to write off their investments in the Space Station. There is a long and successful history of government bases on Earth slowly growing into sites of commerce. Already, the existance of the Space Station is forcing the nations of the world to keep certain launch vehicles and spacecraft alive, and to encourage commercial companies to develop new ones. It seems at least possible that, if we do deploy a polar lunar base and use skipping polar reentries, a high-latitude LEO base may yet prove important for future deep-space expeditions.

I know that my “vision” here — based more on my archaeological and historial backgrounds, than on a technical one — is not widely subscribed. However, for the sake of arguement, let’s assume that I am right.

If so, than the case for inviting China becomes much the same as that for free trade with China. If the Space Station becomes a truly international place — which it seems well on the way to becoming — than having them involved could provide many of the “upsides” that you list.

It is popular to denigrate Mr. Clinton’s invetation to Russia to join the Space Station on technical grounds, but we forget he did that as part of an attempt to tie them into the larger world economy. It worked. Russia has avoided significant conflict with us, and it seems likely that their involvement in the Space Station has contributed in a small way to that. It has certainly tied their aerospace industry into the Western economy far more than would have been the case otherwise. They’ve kept the project afloat with their simple and effective transportation system. A Chinese copy of that system provides greater flexibility, security (in the economic sense), and an alternative the next time we’re unhappy with the Russians.

You say that free trade may be the greatest peacemaker of all time, and I don’t disagree with that. Providing China with economic reasons to tie their aerospace industry closer to ours strikes me as a good lever to that end. Encouraging the Space Station to become a place for international commerce, while making China a part of that, strikes me as two net goods.

— Donald